The time travel thing has been an integral part of the "narrative" since the beginning. If the author has a problem with it, why does he even bother playing the game? My only problem with the modern day portions of the game is the limitations of Desmond's abilities. I've been waiting for an AC game where Desmond kicks azz!

Sorry, what? The time travel aspect isn't even remotely integral to the games. It's a framing device for the narrative, nothing more, nothing less. The game proper occurs in the historical time period.

You must not have been playing the same game I have been playing for the past six years. Do you remember the first one? The modern day portion of the game defined the narrative (I hate that word... too political sounding).

Maybe you should go back and play AC1. BTW, I found all the flags in AC1 by myself. Awww yeah!

The Animus isn't just a framing device for the narrative; it's also there to justify the "video-gamey" parts as well: logic behind the HUD, reason for never "dying," etc. It also acts as an interesting way for Desmond to grow in his abilities despite initially being confined.

...Right, it also justifies the UI and game mechanics. But that's irrelevant to the narrative. The whole "train Desmond into an Assassin" was just something they did to make the frame more interesting--they didn't really do anything with it. In the story, Desmond spends 99% of the time as a framing device, and 1% of the time as a plot device (the herpderp AC3 ending, the 3 or so really short heavily scripted assassination "missions" you got to go on."

tl;dr if you think the Assassin's Creed games would be substantially different gameplay-wise or story-wise with the removal of Desmond, you're deluding yourself. It's fine you you like or prefer the Desmond segments, but you really have to admit that the Desmond content was peripheral to the historical content.

You're kind of missing the point if this is your response to that. I mentioned the gameplay components because this duality fuels the game's logic but doesn't have the effect of "ludonarrative dissonance" in the process.

"tl;dr if you think the Assassin's Creed games would be substantially different gameplay-wise or story-wise with the removal of Desmond, you're deluding yourself."

Why bring out the tl;dr after one paragraph? Anyways...no, I wouldn't be deluding myself in thinking the story would be substantially different WERE Desmond's side of the AC duality to not have been there at all. Whatever arbitrary length you deem a side story/framing device must contain before being considered integral to the narrative doesn't change that.

It's really not. All of the Assassins Creed games have always been about the respective assassins in the past. That's why 99% of your time is spent as Ezio, Connor or Atlair. Did you somehow miss that stuff?

The science-fiction element is mostly superfluous and incorporated in the game largely because Ubisoft didn't trust a more conservative historical narrative to be able to sustain the interest of the average gamer.

Read my post. Please. Reading comprehension matters, otherwise you'll do something foolish like make a post like the one you just did.

Fun fact: "Didn't" is a contraction that means "did NOT."

Emphasis on the "NOT."

My point was that Ubisoft did NOT do a conservative historical narrative and INSTEAD introduced the science fiction elements BECAUSE they thought that kind of framing device would have broader mass appeal.

LMFAO at all the disagrees I'm getting (and Xof, too). These are not subjective opinions here... they are literal facts. The science fiction aspect of the narrative -IS- a framing device. That is its function. You cannot argue with this. And framing devices very, very seldom integral to their narratives.

im worried it the game will get stale real fast. ship navigation and combat will be cool at first, but after a hour it will seem like "time to get back on the ship, oh look, enemy ships poped up, lets blow them up, ZZZZZZZZZZZ"

"Enemies are too weak. They line up for slaughter single-file. There is little reason to sneak around as an assassin when you can simply cleave your way through all your foes. There is no satisfaction in defeating your enemies when your enemies present no challenge. The same challenge that made naval warfare fun in the last game was absent in hand-to-hand combat."

Couldn't agree more. AC games has the boriest combat mechanics in modern gaming - the sole reason why I got tired of the series.

me too. If sword fighting was still fun or challenging Id love the game but every fight is exactly the same and waaay to easy. I mindlessly killed hundreds at one of there spawn points and barely got hurt.

I've done that too just to see how long I could keep up. Which leads me to another huge complaint about ACIII: infinite enemies. I don't think it was like this on other sin games, or if it was, at least they'd spawn at a much slower rate. The way it is is very anti stealth. Actually the whole game was build against stealth: you kill an enemy silently, another would come right away, all the while every other enemy in the vincinity would magically be aware of your presence. It would make really annoying to move in the rooftops as well just like you'd have been doing in every other ac game before III. So those are the things I'll keep an eye for in part IV. Should they remain the same, the series is dead to me. On the contrary, I'll gladly join the hype mob.

1) Characters: they never felt interesting, including their interactions among each other and with environment

2) The world that was cut into pieces and you MUST stop at each piece while fast traveling. That was OUTRIGHT STUPID

3) The story was fast forwarded so many times that players didn't really get any time to "know" Connor (the way players got to know Ezio). For me, that left a very bad impression of Connor as an idiot who is being duped by both sides.

4) Missions (both story missions and side missions) were pathetically designed with poor thought towards gameplay and different options (like open conflict v/s stealth)

5) Side-quests like homestead could have been a lot more fun if they were explained better in game. They just felt too complicated and stupid at times. for example when Connor gives folks advice about sexual relationship between spouse :| Seriously?

6) Up until the end, I could never figure out if red coats were friends or enemies. That was frustrating. I would play my @ss off against redcoats to capture a fort and within a flash, the redcoats would appear back being friendly to me. Again in a flash of second, SOBs would start attacking me. W T F?

Bottom line: I'm not going to play AC4 right when it comes out. I will wait to see gameplay reviews, few walkthroughs and more importantly, PRICE DROP; so that I won't feel like the way I felt for AC3

I have no desire to play AC 4. the AC games have gotten boring. IMO. i know people who will buy this and any other AC game they make but to me it has run its course. I have played all of the games they are to easy, the only real challenge is finding everything. and the last 2 games by the time i got most of the way through the game i was like can this just be over now.